Outcome from Meeting with Minister

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

• Today the people in the Great Southern had the opportunity to talk to the Minister for Local Government, John Castrilli, at a public meeting in Wagin.

I was disappointed at the small contingent that turned up at the Town Hall. The Shire of Kent was well represented with four councillors and two community members.
People came from far and wide, with representatives from Wickepin, Katanning, Woodanilling  and a number of other shires.

The Minister opened with the meeting by reading out the range of 'benefits' that are outlined in the Local Government Reform Steering Committee's "Structural Reform Guidelines, February 2009.
They are listed as:

• increased capacity for local government to better plan, manage and deliver services to their communities with a focus on social, environmental and economic sustainability
• increased capacity for local government to have adequate financial and asset management plans in place
• enhanced efficiency in the processing of planning, building and other licence applications made by business and community
• greater ability to attract staff including the provision of further career development opportunities
• greater competition for positions on council, and, in addition with other reforms, potential for enhanced government capacity
  

The Minister then allowed questions from the public. In his responses, he stressed the 'voluntary' aspect many times in the discussion on amalgamation, though limited this to the process that is happening now and could not indicate whether this voluntary idea would continue once he gave his report to the State Government.
 
The process, as I understand it from the Minister's talk today, goes as follows:
1. Councils are to send Submissions to the Ministers office by August 31st with their preferred reform, amalgamation proposals and preferences.
2. The Minister will then give his recommendations to the State Government (around Dec 2009)
In providing recommendations, the Minister stated:
         a) Those Councils wishing to amalgamate will be given every assistance to do so.
         b)If a rural council indicated they did not wish to amalgamate, he would recommend to the State Government that they not be forced to do so.

The Minister was asked to clarify what the term 'building capacity' meant as this was a phrase he used frequently. I don't believe we received an answer to this.

Another question was raised as to the meaning of the use of the word 'diversity' in the assessment of a council's checklist. The term was used in the report back to the council indicating there was not enough diversity in their council structure. Again, the Minister was unable to clarify the meaning.

I asked a question of the Minister, "Why are you pushing amalgamation as a reform when there is research (FSRB in South Australia) showing that 'amalgamation brings with it significant costs and exaggerated benefits; and there are many other forms of cooperation and integration between councils with amalgamation being the most extreme and confronting form of integration'. The report also found that 'there are ways to overcome this disparity between councils' capacity to fund service delivery, including shared delivery service models, strategic alliances and virtual local governments.' "
I asked, "With this in mind, why is the Minister pushing amalgamation as the only sort of reform?"

The Minister's response was that the South Australian Government did not commission that report (SO???) and then proceeded to confuse everyone with a convoluted explanation of the South Australian model which did not really answer my question at all.

There were many impassioned comments and questions to the Minister which were answered with a similar circular response. The standard answer was that it was all about 'capacity building' and it was 'a voluntary process'.
The Minister seemed to have to rely on his Aide to supply vital answers and information to the meeting. His responses were repetitious and standardised, with little hard evidence or any indication of the distinctions that should be applied to city and rural council reform.

Interestingly, he mentioned that State Government needs to undertake reforms as well to improve their efficiency. My belief is that, when State Government complete an efficiency and sustainability checklist, then put forward a submission based on the results of the assessment of this checklist, and  undertake the recommended reforms, then Local Government can follow suit. And, not before!!

 At the conclusion of the meeting, I was asked to provide a comment for ABC Radio. I agreed to do so, and the question was, "What is the feeling you take away from this meeting today?"

They would have edited out any swearing, so I went with a response that indicated our frustration at the reform process, especially the checklist, and that I came away disappointed and frustrated.
I wish I'd had more time to think about it, as I would have re-iterated the fact that the State Government has still not provided us with any significant proof that their reform process of amalgamation will improve services and efficiencies.